Essential Space on Nothing Phone (3)

With the launch of the Phone (3), Nothing has reached a pivotal junction in its brand evolution. For years, the London-based start-up was defined by its "aesthetic-first" philosophy - transparent plastics, Glyph lights and a monochromatic UI that looked undeniably cool - but didn’t necessarily change how we used our devices.

Nothing OS 3.5 introduced Essential Space, meaning that Nothing is moving away from being a mere lifestyle brand and into the territory of "functional AI". This isn't just a software update; it is perhaps the most significant shift in the brand’s history, turning the smartphone into a proactive "second memory".

The Concept: A Digital Second Brain

At its core, Essential Space is an AI-powered hub designed to solve the modern epidemic of "digital amnesia". We all suffer from it: the habit of taking a screenshot of a recipe, a book recommendation or a flight confirmation, only for it to be buried under thousands of photos, never to be seen again. Essential Space acts as a centralised repository for this "messy data". It’s a hybrid of a notes app, a voice recorder and an intelligent gallery. Using a combination of on-device processing and cloud-based AI, it transcribes, summarises and categorises snippets of your life so they can be retrieved through natural language search. Instead of scrolling through a gallery for ten minutes, you can simply ask Essential Space for "that blue shirt I saw last Tuesday" and the AI presents the relevant screenshot.

The Essential Key: Hardware Meets Intent

The most brilliant stroke of genius in the Phone (3) isn't the code - it’s the Essential Key. Located on the right side of the device, this dedicated hardware button removes the friction that usually kills AI utility. In a world where most AI features are buried three menus deep or require a specific "Hey Google" wake word, Nothing has made "remembering" a physical habit. The tactile, clicky feedback of the button (a hallmark of Nothing’s hardware design) makes the following actions instantaneous

Single Press: Captures a screenshot and saves it directly to the Space.

Long Press: Triggers the Essential Recorder, transcribing voice in real-time.

Double Press: Opens the Essential Space app to view your saved "Memories".

Camera Integration: Pressing the key while the camera is open snaps a photo and adds it to the Essential Space as a visual note.

By tethering the software to a physical key, Nothing has turned AI into a tool rather than a gimmick. It feels less like an app and more like a specialised piece of gear - reminiscent of the "Teenage Engineering" influence that has always permeated the brand.

Essential Recorder and the Glyph Matrix

The integration between hardware and software extends to the Essential Recorder. While the Google Pixel has long been the king of transcription, Nothing adds a layer of "secret agent" utility. The Flip-to-Record feature is a game-changer for digital mindfulness. By placing the phone face-down, you signal that you are present in the room, yet the device quietly begins capturing the conversation. During a recording, a single press of the Essential Key acts as a "bookmark" marking a timestamp for the AI to prioritise in the final summary. This is where the Glyph Matrix - the 489-LED dot-matrix display on the rear - comes alive. It provides a visual pulse to the AI’s "thinking" process. When Essential Space is processing a summary in the background, the Matrix shows a pulsing animation. If you’re recording, it displays a live waveform. This allows you to stay informed about the AI’s status without ever turning on the 6.7-inch OLED screen, keeping you away from the distractions of the notification shade.

Comparative Analysis: Nothing vs Google

When comparing Nothing Essential Space with Google Pixel Screenshots, the two platforms represent fundamentally different approaches to digital organisation. Nothing prioritises immediate, physical interaction through its hardware-first design, utilising a dedicated "Essential Key" to trigger actions instantly. In contrast, Google employs a software-first method, relying on standard OS gestures or sharing menus to capture content.

Nothing’s platform is also more multi-modal, acting as a holistic "second brain" that ingests voice notes, photos, links and text, whereas Google remains visual-centric, focusing primarily on screenshots. This philosophical difference extends to privacy: while Google’s Gemini Nano handles processing locally on-device for maximum security, Nothing uses a hybrid model that relies heavily on the cloud for its deep summarisation capabilities. Ultimately, Nothing positions Essential Space as a proactive personal assistant, while Google frames its tool as a smart, searchable archive.

While Google’s AI (Gemini Nano) is technically superior and more private due to its on-device nature, Nothing wins on friction reduction. On a Pixel, you have to take a screenshot and wait for the AI to index it. On the Phone (3), you hold a button and talk, or click a button to "save". Nothing’s approach is more holistic, acting as a repository for your clipboard and voice, effectively replacing the need for separate apps like Notion or Evernote for quick captures.

The "Nothing-isms": Limitations and Concerns

Despite the innovation, the experience isn't without its "Nothing-isms". The most contentious point for early users is the AI Credit System. Deep summarisation requires Nothing’s servers, and there is a monthly cap on processing. Once you hit the limit, the AI stops summarising until the next month. Nothing has hinted at a "Pro" subscription, which might alienate users who feel they’ve already paid a premium for the hardware. Furthermore, while the Phone (3) is marketed as a "mindful" device, the reliance on the cloud for personal memories is a contradiction. Google’s ability to do this on-device remains the gold standard for privacy. There is also a slight "processing lag" - summaries aren't instant, often taking a few seconds to populate in the background. Finally, the system is currently heavily English-centric. Users in Germany and Italy have reported significant drops in transcription accuracy, suggesting that Nothing’s global AI footprint still has room to grow.

The Verdict: A Proactive Future

The Phone (3) is Nothing’s answer to the philosophy behind the Rabbit R1 or the Humane Pin, but integrated into a device people actually want to carry. It’s the first AI phone that actually encourages you to look at it less. The "Aha!" Moment comes when you see the AI handle "messy" data. If you screenshot a concert flyer, the AI doesn’t just save an image; it extracts the date and asks if you want to add it to your calendar. It transforms the phone from a reactive glass slab into a proactive digital assistant.

Pro-Tips for Users

The Markdown Edge Use the export function in the Essential Recorder to send your meeting summaries directly to Notion or Obsidian - it’s far more versatile than Google’s "locked-in" ecosystem.

Keyword Rules Set custom Glyph Matrix rules for "Essential Notifications 2.0". You can make the back of the phone flash a specific icon only when a "Job Application" email arrives, allowing you to ignore the rest of the digital noise.

The Bottom Line

If you are someone who constantly loses ideas in a sea of unorganised digital clutter, Essential Space is a killer feature that justifies the upgrade. It makes the Phone (3) feel like it has a brain, not just a processor. While the looming subscription model and cloud reliance are valid concerns, the sheer utility of the Essential Key makes this the most "human" AI integration we’ve seen to date. Lastly, the button is in the wrong place! so close to the power key - it keeps being hit by most reports from users - in error. It should be at least the other side of the power button - or even the other side of the phone. Maybe we'll see that hardware change in upcoming models.

Predator 2 (1990)

I watched the first Predator (1987) at the cinema and not since. I remember it being a good adventure yarn with an interesting sci-fi "creature" element in the mix, set in the jungle and led by Arnie doing the punch-ups! This time, the unlikely frontman is Danny Glover, and I was most disappointed by the whole outing.

To be fair, I was not watching the second one with 1980s eyes and expectations, but rather present-day ones, in a world where acting (particularly) has come on in leaps and bounds. But more on that later. This time it’s set in an urban jungle rather than a green one, and the first half hour is complete chaos, depicting gang warfare and the Los Angeles police trying to sort it out in the sweltering summer heat.

In the middle of all this bonkers chaos, our same shimmering, invisible Predator turns up, for some reason ("He's in town with a few days to kill" says the tagline!) and starts slaughtering the members of the cartel. I’m not sure why - perhaps I don’t know enough about the Predator lore to understand why it turns up at that specific point on Earth, in that place and at that time.

The whole first half of the film is fairly boring, frankly, and plays out more like a "buddy cop" film than anything else. The characters are cheesy and typecast. They feel more like they are on the set of the TV series CHiPs, for example. The acting by everyone - yes, even the leads - is terrible, the script is awful and the editing is embarrassingly poor. At one point, for instance, there’s a cop standing to the side clearly awaiting his cue to walk into the hub of the action and deliver his lines. The setting looks like a poorly created studio - and yes, all very late-80s.

When the creature turns up, it does get more interesting, but during the first half, there isn’t much of that. Instead, we get Danny Glover as the cop "playing by his own rules", defying orders and doing as he likes - it’s so samey-samey! He is probably the most convincing actor in the cast, but because his character is so tediously typecast, it makes his performance look totally second-rate, sadly.

The rest of the cast - much like I was reflecting on with King Kong recently (spookily enough, released the same year as this) - just look and feel like actors "acting". They are not at all convincing and, like King Kong, are performing on sets that are equally unconvincing. The members of the Jamaican gang, for example - supposedly hardened criminals - look just like actors in make-up and costumes. I do think that these days acting has come so much further, and we generally expect, at least in well-produced films and TV, to be convinced by the characters. But maybe that’s just me.

Anyway, back to the plot. The body count rises, there is tedious buddy-cop wrangling between enforcement agencies (it’s always the same and has been done so many times) and more poor acting. Suddenly, our hero realises that they’re not after a man, but something otherworldly. Aha! Took him long enough! They end up trying to freeze our cuddly Predator with liquid nitrogen. As we might expect, the creature dispatches 1,001 enemies with ease, but in the showdown with our hero, it suddenly can’t even get just one more - giving him the chance to overpower it!

It’s not really scary as a film or story. In fact, the scariest bit is towards the end during a "vertigo" type scene with our hero creeping along a ledge with a sheer drop just one slip away! Then we get to the finale, where we see more of the creature's situation and the very interesting interior of its craft. No points for guessing what happens. I did wonder earlier why the creature refused to kill a woman because it detected she was pregnant - it was never really explained.

I think once we got away from the buddy-cop tropes and the tedious characters - specifically in the last third of the film - things looked up. Adventure was rife, and as unlikely as some of the outcomes were and as many plot holes as were exposed, this was by far the most entertaining segment. It could almost be watched in isolation. Oh yes, and then just ignore the tedious last scene when it briefly revisits the previous characters. In the finale, a 1712 flintlock pistol is thrown at him as a trophy, which I noticed turned up in Predator: Killer of Killers (2025) the other day - so there is a hook there.

But for me, the spoiler was the acting and characters. While a great actor, Danny Glover doesn't really work for me as a gritty action hero. Shouting at everyone and sweating profusely, he seems more stressed-out than in charge of the situation. And everyone else? It feels like their next job was on the set of Fame or a Porky’s film.

Jump forward to more recent Predator films I’ve seen, such as Prey (2022), and what a difference. Totally jaw-dropping engagement, superb acting and a great story, plot and editing. It’s a world away from this. Maybe I’m being unfair as it’s 35 years old, but it reminded me why I find many films from the 1980s so tedious to endure - though there are, of course, exceptions.

The Cave (2005)

A creature feature that somehow went wrong! It had a great premise and a solid cast featuring Lena Headey and Cole Hauser, but it often got lost in shaky-cam and dark underwater shots - laying aside the otherwise poor acting by most and all that macho-man, sexist claptrap.

We start with a group of explorers thirty years ago in the 1970s, exploring some caves in, around, and under an ancient abbey in Romania. As they poke around inside the building, the floor gives way beneath a mosaic, and they fall into an underground cavern system. That is essentially the last we see of them.

Jump to the present day (well, 2005), and a group of very experienced divers and scientists are hired to restart the exploration and discover what happened to that group, decades prior. We then enter the ‘getting to know the characters’ phase, which focuses on the muscled rivalry between them - buddies pranking each other and ‘manly’ challenges - the usual tropes usually reserved for the likes of Arnie, Van Diesel and Sly. It is all very tedious. They also spend their time flirting with the two female members of the group who, for some reason (particularly the expert climber), are far from rippling with muscles!

Anyway, once we get into the action, they find the route into the cave system, which actually becomes the star of the show. The caves are very nicely imagined (or perhaps some are real locations) as we climb, dive, swim, and explore our way through with the team. Unfortunately, just as they begin to realise that the cave is home to a unique ecosystem with some wonderfully undiscovered parasites and creatures, a rockslide traps them all with no way back!

They have no choice but to head deeper into the network of caves, much of it underwater, whilst slowly realising that the creatures are aggressive, never-before-seen, and must be avoided at all costs to preserve their lives. As you would imagine, most of the supporting cast are picked off one by one, leaving the higher-salaried actors as the longest-lasting characters on set. The leader of the group, Jack, gets scratched by a creature fairly early on but continues regardless.

The task is to find a route out alive before the creatures can finish off the remaining members. There is an annoying amount of handheld camera work; while this is partly acceptable to depict the claustrophobic situation and the footage they are recording themselves, it is simply too much. It is a shame because the idea was a cracking one.

When we eventually see the (underused) creatures, they are imaginatively created and/or animated, but we don't see one clearly until about 75% of the way through the 97-minute runtime. It feels like a wasted opportunity, reinforced by the fact that for a so-called ‘horror’, the monsters aren't particularly scary or horrific.

To be fair, it is a reasonably enjoyable adventure yarn, but so much could have been done better to make it a more satisfying outing. There is a tease at the end for a sequel, but it seems the media and fan reaction was so negative that they didn't bother! It’s a shame they didn't try again and just make it better.

Spoiler Alert The scientists discover a prehistoric parasite (a fungus) that infects its hosts. It is revealed that the winged, amphibious monsters hunting them were actually the original 13th-century explorers (the 1970s team) who became trapped. The parasite mutated them into predators to survive the cave environment. Consequently, Jack begins to undergo a physical transformation; his senses sharpen, his pupils change, and he starts to "think" like the monsters. Just before he fully ‘turns’, he sacrifices himself to save the remaining group members.

Troll (2022) and Troll 2 (2025)

The first of these two Norwegian Netflix films blends modern action with ancient folklore. The story begins with a drilling operation in the mountains. The construction crew uses explosives to tunnel through the rock, inadvertently awakening a 50-foot-tall stone Troll that had been dormant for a thousand years. The creature begins a destructive trek towards Oslo.

The government recruits Nora Tidemann (played by a very capable and likeable Ine Marie Wilmann), a palaeontologist, to investigate the so-called "geological anomaly". She is joined by Andreas, an advisor to the Prime Minister, and Captain Kris, a soldier. Realising the creature matches ancient myths, Nora seeks out her estranged father, Tobias (played by Gard B. Eidsvold), a former folklore professor who was previously institutionalised for being a "fruit-loop" and discredited for his obsession with Trolls!

Our Troll comes out of deep sleep in the rocks, then, and Tobias attempts to communicate with it, believing it to be nice and friendly rather than a monster! It all goes tits-up, as you'd expect, after it starts clumping all over the landscape destroying people and property (mostly, it seems, at least at this stage, by accident) and the military decide that the best route (instead of listening to Tobias and Nora) is force. So they open fire, pointlessly, as it only serves to make the creature angry!

Skip to Oslo's Royal Palace, which was built on the site of the Troll King’s castle. Centuries ago, Christian settlers led by King Olaf massacred the Troll population to "cleanse" the land. The current Troll is actually the last Troll King, returning to his ancestral home to find his family. Nora finds the skeletal remains of baby Trolls in the basement, which she decides to use as bait, luring the grieving Troll King into a trap.

Meanwhile, the government are getting really pissed off and plan a nuclear strike to stop the beast, but Nora and her team intervene. They set up a circle of powerful UV light machines (since Trolls turn to stone in sunlight). As the Troll enters the trap and begins to suffer, Nora has a change of heart. Realising the creature is a tragic victim of history, she turns off the lights and begs it to run back to the mountains. As a result of this showdown, we get a satisfying finale and setup for Troll 2...

Troll 2

...which takes three years to arrive on our screens. So, the sequel was released again on Netflix, in which Nora has become a recluse - apparently as obsessed and fruity as her father! But we have a new, even bigger Troll turning up and the government see fit to whisk her back into action to sort it out, alongside the same core bunch of characters (and actors) as the first film.

Unlike the first Troll, this "Megatroll" is much more aggressive and is actively seeking revenge against the religious fruitcakes who have forcibly taken over the Trolls' land and kingdom. In Nora's reintroduction and briefing session, she is shown a top-secret government research facility that houses a hibernating, chained-up Troll. They also meet a smaller, more peaceful Troll whom Nora has secretly been communicating with. (Hope you're keeping up!)

They realise that the new Troll is following an ancient pilgrimage route toward Trondheim, the ancient capital of Norway. They discover that King Olaf didn't just kill trolls - he built a cathedral over a site of extreme significance to them to erase their history. At this point, the film turns into a more Indiana Jones style presentation than what's gone before, as they get into ancient discovery: rooms hidden behind walls, special keys to open up caverns and passageways, underground pools of water, and so on. Turns out that King Olaf wasn't such a cad after all, by the way.

Anyway, we head towards the final showdown between the big, bad Troll and the underdog, not-so-big Troll as they scrap it out Godzilla style, smashing up the city below them! And, of course, we're set up with another mid-credits scene for a third outing, should they decide to make it.

The second film certainly took the emphasis in a different direction, making it more of a high-octane adventure yarn than the first one, which was somewhat more serious - WarGames (1983) style or the like. They have tried to inject much more humour into the second film than the first and it just feels much more "tongue-in-cheek" throughout.

The actors and characters are generally likeable, the script is alright, and there is some nice scenery on show which the camera makes the most of (assuming it's not special effects). The sets are pretty well done, as is the CGI for the Trolls, and yes, production values across the two are better than I thought they might be. It's all good rip-roaring fun and I spent an enjoyable evening with the double-bill. The time flew and I didn't clock-watch at all.

Marty Supreme (2025) - A Guest Review by Chad Dixon

This is a comedy-drama film directed by Josh Safdie, starring Timothée Chalamet in the lead role as Marty Mauser, an aspiring Jewish-American table tennis star in the 1950s. Stuck in a mundane job in his uncle’s shoe shop on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, he dreams of the fame and fortune he might achieve by pursuing his passion. It’s a growing sport in which he has already become good enough to represent the USA in the upcoming British Open tournament, to be held at London’s Wembley Arena in just a week's time.

It’s Marty’s last day in the store before he travels to London. Just before lunch, a young woman arrives claiming she left her own shoes at the store the previous week when she bought new ones. Marty excuses himself from the elderly customer he was serving and claims he can sort out the issue. He leads the young woman to the back storeroom, but en route, he’s called into his uncle’s office. She ducks down to stay out of sight. Uncle Norkin (Larry Sloman) wants him to stay on and become the store’s new manager as he is great with the customers, but Marty insists on getting the $700 promised to him, as it’s his airfare to London.

Norkin backs down and promises he’ll give him the money by the close of business. Marty then continues into the storeroom with the woman and we discover that they are very well acquainted indeed; she is Rachel Mizler (Odessa A’zion), a childhood friend who is unhappily married and with whom he is having a passionate affair. A little later, during a "five-hour" lunch break, he meets with another friend, Dion Galanis (Luke Manley), and his entrepreneurial father Christopher (John Catsimatidis). Mauser presents a custom orange-coloured ping pong ball that he feels could revolutionise the game. This ball is the "Marty Supreme" after which the film is named.

Much later, Marty arrives back at the shoe shop just after it has closed. His colleague Lloyd (Ralph Colucci) is clearing up and putting the day’s takings away in the office safe. Mauser angrily demands the money he was promised and even reaches for a pistol he knew was in his uncle’s desk drawer. Lloyd stands up to him and refuses, but Marty threatens to shoot.

All of this happens in the first half-hour of the film's rip-roaring 2-hour and 29-minute runtime. The story continues at the same breakneck pace as Marty’s ever more desperate exploits to realise his dream get him involved with all sorts of characters - from low-level crime boss Ezra Mishkin (Abel Ferrara) to pen mogul Milton Rockwell (Kevin O'Leary) and his glamorous film star wife, Kay Stone (Gwyneth Paltrow). Marty improbably has an illicit fling with Kay in a ploy to get closer to her rich husband, as a possible sponsor for his sporting endeavors.

Apparently, Chalamet learned how to play like a competition-level table tennis player for this project, and it shows in the sporadic but quite convincing match scenes. The set design of the early 1950s is extremely authentic. Combined with wonderful performances from the countless "interesting" faces and shapes of the various minor characters, it adds to the atmospheric look and feel of this mid-20th-century urban world. The dialogue is fast-paced with loads of classic 'New Yoiker' accents, and there’s a good smattering of chuckle-worthy moments as Marty's fraught decisions create ever more calamitous situations.

If, like me, you don’t mind stories involving a protagonist with a specific determination who wades through a rough-and-ready world that is constantly throwing them curveballs, you will find this a very entertaining watch. With Chalamet in virtually every scene, his "heavy lifting" delivers another solid performance that further establishes him as one of the most gifted young actors of our age.

Poison (2024)

Directed by Désirée Nosbusch this intimate, high-stakes drama was adapted from the acclaimed play by Lot Vekemans. It is a chamber piece (small cast, intimate, character focused) that takes place almost entirely within the confines of a cemetery. In this case, a cemetery in rural Luxembourg.

The story follows Lucas, played by Tim Roth (The Hateful Eight, Resurrection) and Edith, by Trine Dyrholm (Festen), an estranged couple who have not seen or spoken to each other in ten years. Their only son, Jacob, died 10 years prior in a road accident. They are brought back together because they have been notified that toxins have seeped into the ground, necessitating the exhumation and relocation of their son's body.

As they wait for a cemetery official, who never seems to arrive, the two are forced to confront the poison of their shared past and relationship. Lucas, who walked out on New Year’s Eve years ago, has tried to move on. He has remarried, his new wife is pregnant and he has written a book about his grief. Edith, conversely, has remained frozen in time, unable to move past the moment their son was killed.

On the face of it, it starts off as a film looking to explore environmental toxicity and bureaucratic procedure but soon turns into the real poison - their unresolved grief. As the pair of them move between taking verbal swipes at each other, walking away, coming back, being temporarily tender and back to spitting poison, it becomes clear that Edith is angry that Lucas has apparently 'moved on' and has a new life, escaping what she thinks should be their 'forever' shared tragedy - while she simply can't.

Edith is clearly happy that she has a fresh audience with Lucas and opportunity to offload a bunch of her grief while they wait at the cold, deserted cemetery. It feels as though she is gloating in the fact that he has been forced, by this situation, to face what, it would seem, she'd been suffering with more severely than him all this time.

The film tries to demonstrate that Lucas views grief as something to be managed and eventually put away. His book and his new family are his way of surviving, but Edith views this as a betrayal and doesn't want him to be given any opportunity to 'forget'. But by the end of the film, the viewer realises that all is not quite what it seems and that nobody can 'recover' from such an event - only have ways of dealing with it. She tried during this meeting for a few hours to 'poison' his new life, but comes to realise that life really isn't that simple.

A surprise or two are revealed in this deeply claustrophobic story by the end, which is very slow, very arthouse-like, but certainly makes the viewer think and reflect. Very nicely shot with interesting cinematography making the most of focusing techniques for impact in this dull and drab location, nicely picked. Great to see Tim Roth, particularly, still willing to get involved in low-budget Indie projects, which has paid off here. It's less than 90 minutes and available now on a few streaming services.

Aftersun (2022)

I have been meaning to watch this for years now, well-reviewed and considered as it is - now available outside of Mubi on other streaming services, including the BBC iPlayer. Directed and written by Charlotte Wells, this a deeply emotional and subtle film that explores the blind spots of childhood memories. It is told through the perspective of Sophie, who looks back at a holiday she took with her father, Calum, twenty years earlier.

It's late 1990s at a holiday resort in Turkey. Sophie, played by the amazingly convincing young Frankie Corio (Bagman), is an observant 11-year-old girl and on vacation with her dad, who is about to turn 31. Calum is separated from Sophie’s mother and though he and Sophie share a loving bond, he is clearly struggling with something within.

They have fun playing arcade games and pool, go scuba diving (where Sophie loses an expensive mask, causing dad visible but suppressed stress), lounging by the pool and recording each other on their camcorder. As the holiday progresses, the film shifts between the past (so the actual events of the holiday in the 90s including the grainy pixelated video they shoot together) and the Present (31-year-old Sophie in her apartment, rewatching the tapes).

Sophie hangs out with some kids of her own age on the holiday - and some older - as they experience the coming of age process for her to see. She tries to join in a little by generating her first kiss with a boy her age. During this time we see dad practicing Tai Chi on the balcony in a trance-like state, smoking in secret - and at one point, walking into the dark, crashing waves of the sea at night. Dad is clearly very unhappy and struggling with his mental health, clues throughout, but putting a happy face on for his beloved daughter.

We jump back often to present Sophie, sat on her sofa, trying to reconcile her happy memories through the video with the truth about her dad that she was too young to see at the time, notably, now, the same age as dad was then. She is now able to see how unhappy he was and what the tragic reality was about for him, through the smiles. We see dad buying an expensive rug and 'pro' photo being done which he can't afford. We see him sat weeping, after the holiday, looking at a postcard he has written to Sophie (she's gone back on a flight without him, presumably, as planned). We see him sadly saying goodbye to her at airport as she fools around. Then, when gone, he turns again back into sadness and the oft-visited 'rave' in present-day Sophie's imagination in which she, adult, tries to get him, still 31, to dance.

There's not really any big reveal at the conclusion of the film and much is left to viewers to piece together - and I've probably given too much away here as it is. It's a film about grief and loss, anger, mental health issues, depression - the symbolism and atmosphere rich with the reality of the flickering (in the rave) memories and a broken man trying to hold life together. This is particularly symbolised by their last evening on the holiday together as she tried to get him to dance while Under Pressure by Queen and David Bowie plays and we're encouraged to focus on the lyrics. It's sad, seen through the eyes of an 11 year-old's 'happy'.

Paul Mescal (Gladiator II, Hamnet, All of Us Strangers) plays dad as thoroughly convincingly as Corio does Sophie. Terrific performances, the pair. A poignant story of a man drowning whilst keeping the love of his life afloat. One which reflects that when it comes to mental health issues, many of us might not see the truth behind the facade of those right in front of us, particularly close family. (Aftersun, being the pain left behind following exposure, difficult to fix and recover from.)

It's a terrific film which you have to be in the right mood for - it's often slow and observational with long sections just 'hanging out' with Sophie and dad on the holiday, but with deep meaning and atmosphere beyond. Beautifully shot in terms of the location, sunny resort, littered (obviously) with handheld footage which they have been creating. Script is great, production super, direction and writing spot-on with Charlotte Wells stating that the story is "emotionally autobiographical" reflecting her own experiences with her dad. Recommended.